BuzzerBeater Forums

You can already take your team to -500k (and start paying intrest), before you get a warning. So you can consider that a loan. There have been a few loan suggestions, but to be honest this loan thing does not add anything to a game. It just creates a new 0 point below -500k. If people can take additional loans, they will put themselves into a position they never get out of. More bancrupcy all around.

. Suggestions are said to change the game in a better way and offer players more options to improve their overall experience.

Does this change make the game better?
No it doesn't. How can more teams flaunting with bankruptcy be possibly be good for the game?

Does it improve the overall experience?
No it doesn't. This is at heart a basketball game. Not a financial innovation game. Loans will just mean there will be more money available for teams which will end up creating inflation int he BB economy. With more money available, teams will just bid more for their players and jack up all prices.

Learn to live by your means rather than relying on loans. We don't want another BB financial crisis.

I think some of you don't understand my suggestion, so I'll explain a little further. By loan I mean "to loan a player to another team".

This creates another problem. You loan out a young player for other teams to train. This is an incentitive for cheating with multiple teams. Even if you can't train a loaned player, it really gives nothing to the game but trouble. Loans just before the playoffs, before implortant game runs etc. It just creates pointless hassle. We have the TL, you need a player? Go buy one. You can't handle the player salary, go sell him and replace him with a lower salary player. It's simple.

As for you, I understand this changes the way that the game works in terms of buying players is the only way to gain a player, but this allows for teams who have immediate needs to help one another, at no cost to anyone.
You say that the only way to manage with a salary too high for a team is to sell them off, but isn't it more beneficial to everyone if that team can retain the player in the future but let another team handle the burden of his salary for a while. Both teams will have to abide the terms of the loan.
The team who gains the player will have to pay the weekly salary of the player until the loan length ends, and the team who loans him out will not be able to get him back before the end of the loan.
Once again I understand, this changes the game a little bit which I get can be hard to swallow, but change is good in life. It keeps things fresh and dynamic.
And I know that player loans exist in many sports leagues around the world, I don't think in basketball, but if it works many different sports as it has, then why not in a basketball simulation.

That's a good point, I think it would have to be made so that loaned out players would not receive any effects from training. But as for pointless hassle, I really don't think so, I think it offers team another option to stay competitive or better their team depending on their objectives.

Trades also happen in NBA. That does not mean, it's good for this game.

Your suggestion needs a lot of work. It seems to me you just throw it out there without thinking about the outcome.
What if many managers want to loan a player? If they have to bid, then loans seem pointless, as it's kind of a player selling after all. If a manager can choose who to loan to, we see "cheating" sign on every loan.
Timetable for loaning. One full season and loan window is only in the first week of season (or before the All-Star weekend). Loaning at the second half of the season, seems a lot like helping other teams, rather than being in financial trouble. I don't want a system, where a team can get stronger without paying any transfer fees. In your system I could loan together all my team and start again next season. Train just GS and stand tall. Restrictions to number of loans in team?

This opens up a new can of worms. It opens the door for cheaters to bring on all the talent to specific teams. Teams could loan in high salaried players to buy a championship. It just doesn't work well for the interests of the game

If it is genuine loan, it still doesn't work.

Why would I want to spend my time to train a player that is not mine?? I am much better financial wise to buy a player off the transfer list and give him training minutes and sell him for profit than for me to loan a player from someone, train him and then have him leave my team

but change is good in life

if change is something like you win in lottery i agree, but if the doctor telling you you have diabetes(or worse) thats a big change in life but the most people won't say a good one.

The thing is what does renting player add to the game:

- an second transfer market?

- teams who only rent their players, and could always play at the equilibrium like that - without the process of building their team like today.

And i really don't see the advantage for the team who give out the player for rent, besides the transfer fees when he sell him and use the money he got to get an "similiar" player if he need to. If you loan him without training, he just loose value if you loan him with training we had an very easy way of cheating.